It won't work anyway. the press is regulated, and expected to consider things like the public interest value vs. privacy. Unless Google starts doing that somehow or wants to be regulated that way they won't get far with this argument.
It helps if you understand exactly what this right is, rather than just reacting to the name.
The right to be forgotten applies to companies that keep and supply data about people. There is a long history of this, e.g. with credit reference agencies.
You, as an individual, don't have an automatic right to know about a person's criminal past. Never have. While for practical reasons such information cannot be completely hidden, people have a right to move past certain convictions once they have paid their due to society. Just like you don't have a right to know the contents of their bank account or their medical history, spent convictions cannot be made discoverable except by journalists and others who are expected to consider the public interest value of that information.
If you want to go back that far then they can just move to another village. People in China still do that, because they don't have vast archives of reports about individuals online.
Sounds more like the rhetoric of the 30s. Traitors to the country, opposing the great leaders attempts to protect the nation from the existential threat of immigrants.
Can confirm. The amount of xenophobic/racist abuse as increased since Brexit. I got screamed at in the street for talking Japanese on the phone a few months back. Some people have been emboldened by what they see as endorsement of their xenophobia, regardless of what proportion of leave voters actually agree with them. I know a lot just fell for the Euro myths and £350m/week for the NHS lies.
Obama really does deserve credit for powering the US economy out of the financial crisis. The UK went the opposite way and lost a decade, just the same as Japan did in the 90s. Frustrating as bail-outs are, the alternative is worse.
That makes no sense if the thing they are malcontent about is removed. Why would they remain unhappy when they get to move to a better country and earn loads of money?
Facebook is shady, because people didn't know that it wasn't just their data that was being shared with Farmville, it was their friends' data. And their friends had not agreed to that. And Facebook knew it was happening, but didn't act quickly to stop it.
Just failing to build safeguards against that sort of abuse in the first place is pretty shady. In the EU companies handling personal data have a legal obligation to protect it, and it appears that Facebook failed in its duty.
It's not that the US develops those weapons, as much as they US gets involved in a lot of other countries. Reducing that would be a good start, but unfortunately it looks unlikely under the current administration.
Advanced weapons don't make a huge difference really. The US still has enough nukes to maintain MAD. No missile shield is reliably enough to defend against that arsenal, and the same goes for current Russian ICBMs. All this stuff about hypersonic nuclear cruise missiles and torpedo drones is largely posturing, adding nuclear warheads to technologies developed for other kinds of warfare.
The big danger now is from the new cold war. Cyber attacks, interference with democracy and supplying arms that can't be traced. Basically the same as the old cold war, with newer tech.
The best you can say about Trump's economic policies is that he hasn't tanked the economy yet, but is working hard to get there. A trade war with China is only going to hurt both sides, as are the steel tariffs with the rest of the world.
He seems to have assumed that it would be like when it was running a business, with lots of people kissing his ass and eager to do deals. But countries aren't like that, they will resist his shitty deals as much as possible. Maybe the UK will end up with one, due to being weak and desperate post-Brexit, but the other big markets like the EU, Japan and China won't.
Indeed, if you look on the TMC forums there are regular questions from people thinking about buying, or worse having just bought a Tesla and asking if they can take a nap while Autopilot takes them to work.
It doesn't help that Tesla is actually selling "full self driving" capability already, to be delivered as a software update. Apparently the salespeople are telling customers it's six months away, which is a joke. Even Musk thinks 2020, but that's incredibly optimistic.
Tesla cars are expensive. You have to be well off to own one, which means you are much less likely to be taking risks like driving drunk or on drugs. Having spent all that money on a car, you are probably going to look after it and not take the same risks you would in a $1000 banger. You are also likely travelling very different roads, better maintained and at less congested times of the day. Your car is likely to be well maintained.
So comparing to the average, especially in the US where regulations are relatively lax, is misleading. A fair comparison would be with accident rates among luxury cars in a similar price bracket. Audi, Lexus, Mercedes.
How would avatars help when people want to post photos of themselves? And then tag those photos, and talk about seeing "Dave and Jessica at the party"?
Even without your real name, it's not hard to link a profile to you. Especially for Facebook, which has bugs all over the web and a detailed graph of your relationships and acquaintances.
Recently we have been seeing stories about sex workers and clients being recommended to each other on Facebook, despite never having used Facebook for communication. Most likely the app raided their phone contacts or noticed that they were both in the same vicinity at the same time.
Ireland is attractive because of the culture and language.
The Netherlands is attractive because the working language is English and they have a 30% rule, where for the first 8 years you get the first 30% of your income completely outside the tax system. Also, the Netherlands is very progressive.
Could you really fault me for this apparent mistake, considering how easily accusations of Nazism is getting thrown from your side?
Well... Yeah, I mean, I don't really regard people who throw such accusations around as "my side". I can't be held accountable for their actions and it's frankly quite annoying when people assume I'm some kind of "SJW" or "leftist" or whatever.
Mashiki does this all the time, listing endless things he thinks I believe but which anyone who had actually read my posts seriously would know are absurd. That's why I've given up with him, it's just impossible to have any kind of conversation at all with the guy.
Sorry for the rant but it really annoys me, far more than the censorship.
Thanks for having a good debate here. It's getting kinda rare on Slashdot.
I think that given the number of progressive/socialist channels on YouTube already affected, at most you could say that multiple people are YouTube are pushing an agenda but even that would be pure speculation. I think this comes back to the basic problem, that the whole system is opaque. Employers have to explain these decisions.
I believe so, yes. They had a show about video games, on around the time that GamerGate was in full swing. There was an episode looking at similar issues to the Tropes vs. Women series, I guess getting in on the zeitgeist and also reacting to the attacks and dismissals. Like a lot of other media around the time.
I didn't imply that at all, I was just using an extreme but not uncommon example of the type of political video that advertisers won't touch.
I feel like I can't win. If I say "far right" or "alt right" people just say it's "everyone you hate". If I enumerate several examples we get bogged down in their relative merits and if they are real Nazis/nationalists/supremacists or not, and it distracts from the point I'm making. If I just give one, clear and straightforward example this happens.
I'll try some other form of words next time, but if you really want to have a serious debate about this then you have to assume good faith and look at the point being made. I used the word "brigade" yesterday and people misunderstood that, likely due to cultural differences between the UK and US, and it just degrades the discussion to infer bad faith like that.
SJW is doubtful, considering the love she is getting over on 4chan's/pol/ at the moment.
She was a vegan, but it's unrelated to this crime.
So why these labels, one an outright lie? It's because some people are trying to use this as an opportunity to attack those groups. Pretty sick really.
"CPM" is the amount paid per 1000 ad views. The range is huge because some channels attract much better paying ads than others.
What changed over the last couple of years is that high paying brands started being much more selective about the videos they were displayed on.
They started targeting certain channels and certain topics, rather than the more broad categories like "lifestyle" that was basically a dumping ground for everything from make-up tips to political videos. They also started avoiding some content entirely, and YouTube provided them with the tools to do it such as automatic transcription and content detection.
The result is that a lot of channels that were previously doing well because they were "under the radar" and advertisers were not really aware of their content started to lose revenue. Many offset it by pushing viewers towards Patreon, which is often a lot more lucrative anyway.
If you started your own YouTube alternative you would find advertisers make the same demands of you.
That would only be true if they took away your guns and then retained their own. Perhaps they would prefer not to have the armed security around the whole time, like high ranking public figure in other countries.
Employment rights won't get Nazi videos re-monetized though. Nothing will do that, and that's fine because the messages are still there, YouTube just isn't paying anyone to make them.
What employment rights would help with are people like this woman who have multiple channels to separate out different types of content, and who wouldn't get so frustrated and angry if the system was more transparent. The kafkaesque strike and appeal system, and the inability to contact a human being, and the lack of any support in terms of understanding why content is de-monetized is the problem.
In the worst possible situation YouTube would notice that a previously monetized channel was actually full of content that advertisers were refusing. Rather than an instant cut-off they would de-monetize, pay some form of "redundancy" money based on what the channel was previously earning, and offer support for producing more acceptable content in future.
Obviously her graphic animal welfare videos would never have been acceptable to most advertisers, but if someone explained that and showed her how she could make less graphic videos that still help get her message out, and how that reaches a wider audience, she might have been okay with that.
It's actually something that the far right on YouTube has learned and made good use of. The understand that while YouTube will tolerate their supremacist views, their defence is Nazism and the like, but that it won't be popular. So they have "alt-light" channels, producing more moderate videos that draw people in, that can get millions of views and front page exposure.
Slashdot Mirror
It won't work anyway. the press is regulated, and expected to consider things like the public interest value vs. privacy. Unless Google starts doing that somehow or wants to be regulated that way they won't get far with this argument.
It helps if you understand exactly what this right is, rather than just reacting to the name.
The right to be forgotten applies to companies that keep and supply data about people. There is a long history of this, e.g. with credit reference agencies.
You, as an individual, don't have an automatic right to know about a person's criminal past. Never have. While for practical reasons such information cannot be completely hidden, people have a right to move past certain convictions once they have paid their due to society. Just like you don't have a right to know the contents of their bank account or their medical history, spent convictions cannot be made discoverable except by journalists and others who are expected to consider the public interest value of that information.
If you want to go back that far then they can just move to another village. People in China still do that, because they don't have vast archives of reports about individuals online.
Sounds more like the rhetoric of the 30s. Traitors to the country, opposing the great leaders attempts to protect the nation from the existential threat of immigrants.
According to the same source as TFA, H1B workers don't depress native wages. In fact, they are on average paid slightly above market rate.
https://www.glassdoor.com/rese...
Thanks, I was curious and that's interesting.
Can confirm. The amount of xenophobic/racist abuse as increased since Brexit. I got screamed at in the street for talking Japanese on the phone a few months back. Some people have been emboldened by what they see as endorsement of their xenophobia, regardless of what proportion of leave voters actually agree with them. I know a lot just fell for the Euro myths and £350m/week for the NHS lies.
Obama really does deserve credit for powering the US economy out of the financial crisis. The UK went the opposite way and lost a decade, just the same as Japan did in the 90s. Frustrating as bail-outs are, the alternative is worse.
That makes no sense if the thing they are malcontent about is removed. Why would they remain unhappy when they get to move to a better country and earn loads of money?
Facebook is shady, because people didn't know that it wasn't just their data that was being shared with Farmville, it was their friends' data. And their friends had not agreed to that. And Facebook knew it was happening, but didn't act quickly to stop it.
Just failing to build safeguards against that sort of abuse in the first place is pretty shady. In the EU companies handling personal data have a legal obligation to protect it, and it appears that Facebook failed in its duty.
It's not that the US develops those weapons, as much as they US gets involved in a lot of other countries. Reducing that would be a good start, but unfortunately it looks unlikely under the current administration.
Advanced weapons don't make a huge difference really. The US still has enough nukes to maintain MAD. No missile shield is reliably enough to defend against that arsenal, and the same goes for current Russian ICBMs. All this stuff about hypersonic nuclear cruise missiles and torpedo drones is largely posturing, adding nuclear warheads to technologies developed for other kinds of warfare.
The big danger now is from the new cold war. Cyber attacks, interference with democracy and supplying arms that can't be traced. Basically the same as the old cold war, with newer tech.
The best you can say about Trump's economic policies is that he hasn't tanked the economy yet, but is working hard to get there. A trade war with China is only going to hurt both sides, as are the steel tariffs with the rest of the world.
He seems to have assumed that it would be like when it was running a business, with lots of people kissing his ass and eager to do deals. But countries aren't like that, they will resist his shitty deals as much as possible. Maybe the UK will end up with one, due to being weak and desperate post-Brexit, but the other big markets like the EU, Japan and China won't.
Indeed, if you look on the TMC forums there are regular questions from people thinking about buying, or worse having just bought a Tesla and asking if they can take a nap while Autopilot takes them to work.
It doesn't help that Tesla is actually selling "full self driving" capability already, to be delivered as a software update. Apparently the salespeople are telling customers it's six months away, which is a joke. Even Musk thinks 2020, but that's incredibly optimistic.
It's not a like-for-like comparison though.
Tesla cars are expensive. You have to be well off to own one, which means you are much less likely to be taking risks like driving drunk or on drugs. Having spent all that money on a car, you are probably going to look after it and not take the same risks you would in a $1000 banger. You are also likely travelling very different roads, better maintained and at less congested times of the day. Your car is likely to be well maintained.
So comparing to the average, especially in the US where regulations are relatively lax, is misleading. A fair comparison would be with accident rates among luxury cars in a similar price bracket. Audi, Lexus, Mercedes.
How would avatars help when people want to post photos of themselves? And then tag those photos, and talk about seeing "Dave and Jessica at the party"?
Even without your real name, it's not hard to link a profile to you. Especially for Facebook, which has bugs all over the web and a detailed graph of your relationships and acquaintances.
Recently we have been seeing stories about sex workers and clients being recommended to each other on Facebook, despite never having used Facebook for communication. Most likely the app raided their phone contacts or noticed that they were both in the same vicinity at the same time.
Ireland is attractive because of the culture and language.
The Netherlands is attractive because the working language is English and they have a 30% rule, where for the first 8 years you get the first 30% of your income completely outside the tax system. Also, the Netherlands is very progressive.
It was before the demonetization problems really started. The video was temporarily hidden and a strike issued, but later restored.
Could you really fault me for this apparent mistake, considering how easily accusations of Nazism is getting thrown from your side?
Well... Yeah, I mean, I don't really regard people who throw such accusations around as "my side". I can't be held accountable for their actions and it's frankly quite annoying when people assume I'm some kind of "SJW" or "leftist" or whatever.
Mashiki does this all the time, listing endless things he thinks I believe but which anyone who had actually read my posts seriously would know are absurd. That's why I've given up with him, it's just impossible to have any kind of conversation at all with the guy.
Sorry for the rant but it really annoys me, far more than the censorship.
Thanks for having a good debate here. It's getting kinda rare on Slashdot.
I think that given the number of progressive/socialist channels on YouTube already affected, at most you could say that multiple people are YouTube are pushing an agenda but even that would be pure speculation. I think this comes back to the basic problem, that the whole system is opaque. Employers have to explain these decisions.
I believe so, yes. They had a show about video games, on around the time that GamerGate was in full swing. There was an episode looking at similar issues to the Tropes vs. Women series, I guess getting in on the zeitgeist and also reacting to the attacks and dismissals. Like a lot of other media around the time.
Naturally it was targeted too.
I didn't imply that at all, I was just using an extreme but not uncommon example of the type of political video that advertisers won't touch.
I feel like I can't win. If I say "far right" or "alt right" people just say it's "everyone you hate". If I enumerate several examples we get bogged down in their relative merits and if they are real Nazis/nationalists/supremacists or not, and it distracts from the point I'm making. If I just give one, clear and straightforward example this happens.
I'll try some other form of words next time, but if you really want to have a serious debate about this then you have to assume good faith and look at the point being made. I used the word "brigade" yesterday and people misunderstood that, likely due to cultural differences between the UK and US, and it just degrades the discussion to infer bad faith like that.
She isn't transgender.
SJW is doubtful, considering the love she is getting over on 4chan's /pol/ at the moment.
She was a vegan, but it's unrelated to this crime.
So why these labels, one an outright lie? It's because some people are trying to use this as an opportunity to attack those groups. Pretty sick really.
The amount you earn from views varies massively. Have a play with this calculator: https://socialblade.com/youtub...
"CPM" is the amount paid per 1000 ad views. The range is huge because some channels attract much better paying ads than others.
What changed over the last couple of years is that high paying brands started being much more selective about the videos they were displayed on.
They started targeting certain channels and certain topics, rather than the more broad categories like "lifestyle" that was basically a dumping ground for everything from make-up tips to political videos. They also started avoiding some content entirely, and YouTube provided them with the tools to do it such as automatic transcription and content detection.
The result is that a lot of channels that were previously doing well because they were "under the radar" and advertisers were not really aware of their content started to lose revenue. Many offset it by pushing viewers towards Patreon, which is often a lot more lucrative anyway.
If you started your own YouTube alternative you would find advertisers make the same demands of you.
That would only be true if they took away your guns and then retained their own. Perhaps they would prefer not to have the armed security around the whole time, like high ranking public figure in other countries.
Employment rights won't get Nazi videos re-monetized though. Nothing will do that, and that's fine because the messages are still there, YouTube just isn't paying anyone to make them.
What employment rights would help with are people like this woman who have multiple channels to separate out different types of content, and who wouldn't get so frustrated and angry if the system was more transparent. The kafkaesque strike and appeal system, and the inability to contact a human being, and the lack of any support in terms of understanding why content is de-monetized is the problem.
In the worst possible situation YouTube would notice that a previously monetized channel was actually full of content that advertisers were refusing. Rather than an instant cut-off they would de-monetize, pay some form of "redundancy" money based on what the channel was previously earning, and offer support for producing more acceptable content in future.
Obviously her graphic animal welfare videos would never have been acceptable to most advertisers, but if someone explained that and showed her how she could make less graphic videos that still help get her message out, and how that reaches a wider audience, she might have been okay with that.
It's actually something that the far right on YouTube has learned and made good use of. The understand that while YouTube will tolerate their supremacist views, their defence is Nazism and the like, but that it won't be popular. So they have "alt-light" channels, producing more moderate videos that draw people in, that can get millions of views and front page exposure.
This is a bad joke by the way, I'm not mocking sinij. I have a feeling some people will assume I am.